This topic can open a can of worms. (Sort of like the class B vs. class A argument for Europe.) I don't believe there's a margin of compliance with the limit spelled out in any regulations or standards. The standards set a limit and leave it up to the manufacturer to meet that limit. EN55022/CISPR22 does refer to the statistical method of assuring with 80% confidence level that 80% of the product type is below the limit, but this requires testing at least 5 product samples. I think most companies prefer to test 1 sample for qualification and then from time to time perform an audit test on a production sample taken at random. Given a test sample size of 1 and the measurement variables (measurement uncertainty, product to product variations, test site to test site variations, testing repeatability, ...to name just a few...), I believe a 2 dB margin is not good enough to ensure your product would pass a random audit test. At least not for radiated emissions. (I might accept that for conducted emissions, which is inherently a more stable and repeatable measurement. However, I would probably insist on a larger sample size than 1 if the margin is only 2 dB.) In general, for compliance measurements, I prefer to work with a 5 dB or greater margin with the applicable limit. Jim Hulbert Senior EMC Engineer Pitney Bowes
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Required Margin for EMI? Author: <s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas) > at SMTPGWY List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/26/98 12:50 PM Hello all, When doing EMI scans of ITE, I have always worked with a margin of 2 dB less than the actual limit. No test house I have ever been to will give a "meets the requirements..." without having this margin. Can anyone point out if this is an actual requirement built into any of the standards, i.e. EN 55022 or FCC Part 15, etc. and if so, where is it in writing? I understand about measurement errors, product to product differences and repeatability of testing issues. Just want to know if the 2dB margin is actually written into law. Thanks for your comments. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Received: from tsap.ct.pb.com by smtppc.ct.pb.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.01.01) ; Mon, 26 Oct 98 15:53:36 -0500 Return-Path: <owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> Received: from micro2.ct.pb.com by tsap.ct.pb.com (5.65v4.0/1.1.3.6) id AA21305; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:49:31 -0500 Received: by micro2.pb.com (5.65v4.0/1.1.3.6) id AA11536; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:48:44 -0500 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11351 for emc-pstc-resent; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:49:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <fc.0064b57b0004a9730064b57b0004a973.4a...@ecrm.com> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:50:00 -0500 Subject: Required Margin for EMI? To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org From: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas) X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org